Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:

 > Yet one more measure of the rejection of Ada in this country, and
 > one more statistic that AJPO in its mismanagement of Ada policy
 > refuses to measure.  An article in the February 20, 1995, issue of
 > Computerworld, page 129, on how companies use technical proficiency
 > tests listed the following table on the top 10 computing skills
 > tests being used by corporations...

    Again, Greg totally misses the point.  If I were applying for a
job and was asked to take ANY of these tests, I would walk out.  Any
place interested in my skills is hiring software engineers, not
technicians.

    Even if COBOL or C was my language of choice--and I have
programmed in both (in fact I have maintained compilers for both,
which requires a lot deeper knowledge of the language), I would still
walk out.

    So the only thing shown by these statistics is a combination of
appropriate use (for entry level programmer positions) and preferences
of clueless personel managers.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Chuck Bramlet]

Gregory Aharonian expounds at length on the "fact" that Ada is
not being enthusiastically embraced by corporate America.

Personally, being reletively new to the programming business,
I don't see that much of a problem with Ada.  If Greg could see
some of the hacked code that I had to dig through last year, to
write an Ada program that did the same thing, he might change
his mind.  The value of a language is in how well it is used,
and in how easily it can be made to do what needs to be done.

Granted, there are other languages that are more easily used,
but each has it's target users and applications.  While you
wouldn't necessarily program a PC application in Ada, you
deffinately would not want to program an airplane in COBOL or
SmallTalk.  At least, IMHO.  Also, if one's company wants to
program for a government facility, for the most part one must
program in Ada.

Also, for the record here, COBOL was brought to us many years
ago by the same people who are now pushing Ada (the U.S.
Government).  Thankfully, I have not had to endure the agravation
of taking a COBOL class.  But, I understand that COBOL is about
as programmer friendly as Ada.

Just my $0.02

Chuck bramlet
bramlet@eccx.ateng.az.honeywell.com

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Robert Dewar]

phw (I looked but did not find a name) says:

"An axiom in the marketing game goes something like this:

  In order to break into an existing stable market (C++ etc.)
  a new product (Ada) must either offer twice the PERCEIVED
  positive characteristics at the same price, when compared to
  the existing products in the market, or offer the same
  PERCEIVED positive characteristics at half the price."

what axiom is this? sounds totally bogus to me. Price sensitivity varies
tremendously from one market to another. For example, in the airline game,
much smaller price differentials can get new guys into the game. Equally,
how easily people shift based on quality varies greatly. These factors
of two seem just pulled out of the air. But then a lot of the other
value judgments on Ada vs C++ are also pulled out of the air. For example,
who says development costs are higher in Ada than in C++. This kind of
comparison is very hard to make. You will find precious few cases where
exactly the same software has been developed in both languages, so there
is virtually no empirical data. Instead what we have is a bunch of Ada
enthusiasts who don't know C++ that well who are subjectively sure that
Ada development is easier, and vice versa. Yes, there are some data points
(several I am aware of show much LOWER development costs in Ada).

"Most commercial software is not maintained anyway"

I don't really think you can take that as serious commentary. It is of
course quite false.

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Howard.Gilbert]

In <3iepqn$6ej@mica.inel.gov>, "Paul H. Whittington" <phw@inel.gov> writes:
>
>An axiom in the marketing game goes something like this:
>
>  In order to break into an existing stable market (C++ etc.)
>  a new product (Ada) must either offer twice the PERCEIVED
>  positive characteristics at the same price, when compared to
>  the existing products in the market, or offer the same
>  PERCEIVED positive characteristics at half the price.
>
The C++ market is hardly stable or established.  Borland's 
class library is incompatible with MFC.  The PC market is 
undergoing a transition from 16 to 32 bit compilers.  The 
relationship between C++ and WIN32 system services is not
clear.  Mostly, people use the C subset of the C++ compilers.

At a larger scale, there is a major uncertainty whether the bulk
of development will use compiled languages like C++ or 
interpreted languages like Smalltalk.  Will objects be internal
like C++ or external (Corba).

By analogy, there is a large installed base of ONC (Sun) RPC 
stuff, and it is largely free or at low cost.  Yet the industry is
moving (slowly) in the direction of DCE even at some cost and
conversion because there is a need for security and better
overall structure.  This runs directly against the previous
axiom, since DCE is not cheaper but has a more intangible benefit 
(security).

>
>    The perception here is that the C++ market can provide, in a
>    timely manner, tools that, at the same time, provide for rapid
>    development of applications, with acceptable quality, and support
>    for the latest enabling technologies (OOP, OLE, MAPI, TAPI etc.)
>
Success is measured in Bindings, not in the base language.  Put 
another way, Visual C++ 2.0 will succeed or fail based on how people
react to the Microsoft Foundation Classes and the development 
environment, not based on C++ itself.  I have no data, but I 
wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the C++ users never build a single 
substantive class of their own, but just use vendor supplied class 
libraries.  In the past, Ada has been limited by a lack of bindings 
to widely used systems.  This despite the fact that 
keyword arguments with defaults makes such bindings much easier to 
develop in Ada than other languages.

If people use base system services (WIN32, OS/2 API) then Ada can 
greatly simplify programming.  If people expect to use massively 
repackaged services through objects (MFC) then it is more confusing. 
If they really are unable to deal with programming at all (VB, 
Visual Age) then the whole issue is moot.

>
>    The fact is Ada development products pale in comparison with
>    their C++ peers, not to mention their Smalltalk and PASCAL
>    peers.  We have to bring Ada development products at least up
>    to par with C++ or there is no hope.  If Ada is really as
>    capable a language as we all like to think it is then we should
>    be able to provide considerably more positive characteristics.

Its the secondary elements that tell.  A lot of Ada compilers 
started out with no debugger at all.  The next level is to have a
dbx level of debugger.  If people expect something along the lines
of the MS Debugger or the IBM IPMD, then that looks cheezy.  Since
the other debuggers exist, and since they clearly support C++, the 
assumption is that the issue is generating the right object format.
For example, if OS/2 GNAT moves over to EMX then it will inherit 
(at least in theory) the ability to be debugged with IPMD.  The 
WIN32 equivalent is a bit muddier since it is not as clear who is 
in charge of that port.

But hope is not completely lost.  Drop Ada code in front of most 
"real world" programmers and they will say, "Oh, some Oracle PL/SQL"
because that language is largely based on Ada statement syntax. 
But there is a lot of Oracle around, and people who would never 
consider "Ada" by name are learning much of the basic syntax 
indirectly without knowing it.

---------------
Howard Gilbert -- Chief Mechanic at PC Lube and Tune
Technical training on PC's, networks, and communications.
Point Netscape or WebExplorer at http://pclt.cis.yale.edu/pclt/default.htm

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[David Moore]

Chuck Bramlet <"ELL447::BRAMLET"@ECC7.ATENG.AZ.HONEYWELL.COM> writes:

>Also, for the record here, COBOL was brought to us many years
>ago by the same people who are now pushing Ada (the U.S.
>Government).

Not really. The Government was involved but not in the same way as with Ada.

> Thankfully, I have not had to endure the agravation
>of taking a COBOL class.  But, I understand that COBOL is about
>as programmer friendly as Ada.

Talk about damning with faint praise! I have not written large amounts of
COBOL for something like 7 years and the language has changed (I hear
rumours of Object Orientation - I saw a claimed example of same in a Journal
but either the example or the COBOL extensions are horribly wrong).

Classic COBOL has no block structure, no types (you can fake it on
some compilers with "COPY"). One procedure per compilation unit (there is 
a "perform" which allows you to out-of-order execute and return within a
compilation unit but you cannot pass parameters and there are no local
variables) . No effective looping constructs, so you have to use go-tos 
(or performs) everywhere.

For a while back in the eighties a number of companies were trying to
market "4GLs" (fourth generation languages) as a replacement for COBOL.
The ones I saw had the characteristic of being approximately as broke as COBOL.
Usually they were as broke and much more limited in functionality
as well. Even so, a lot of companies bought them. 

One wonders how hard it would be to sell a real language like Ada 95 
to COBOL shops, especially if integrated into an environment that supported 
conversion of applications. You would want the new decimal capabilities
that were introduced in Ada 95, of course.

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[bgirardo]

In <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>
>     Yet one more measure of the rejection of Ada in this country, and one
>more statistic that AJPO in its mismanagement of Ada policy refuses to measure.
>An article in the February 20, 1995, issue of Computerworld, page 129, on
>how companies use technical proficiency tests listed the following table on
>the top 10 computing skills tests being used by corporations:
>
>		1.	Cobol
>		2.	C
>		3.	CICS

(remaining text deleted). . .

Not that I really care, but I just happened to notice that Neither Notes nor Fortran
are in the above mentioned list.  Does this mean I can remove all of my Notes servers 
from the field?  Hey!  Maybe I can tell my Engineers that Fortran has also been rejected
and so they shouldn't be using that either . . . (flame bait, but what the heck).

Seriously, please remember that certain technical skill come and go as fads (remember PL/1 or 
Multics?), and what today is felt to be a critical skill by an Human Resources department
is tomorrow's legacy system.  Try to remember that all of these tools have their own use,
their own "Best Fit" and don't try to use a wrench as a screwdriver.


 

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Pug 156]

Its no use, folks.  Unix and C are the best operating system and language
the '70s ever built!  Regardless of the fact that C and its bastard C++
have had the price and time advantage over Ada, Ada just can't keep up. 
Remember, C is more popular than Ada, DOS/Windows than OS/2, and
Volkswagen than Porsche.  Please, recognize your failure and let C, DOS,
and Volkswagen have some room.  We will waste no more time with Ada, OS/2,
and Porsche.

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Daneil Wengelin]

Pug 156 (pug156@aol.com) wrote:
: Its no use, folks.  Unix and C are the best operating system and language
: the '70s ever built!  Regardless of the fact that C and its bastard C++


Sounds very much like the Swiss watch manufacturer that when presented
with a quartz watch, designed in his own labs, said "Our mechanical
watches are the best...." and did'nt event bother to patent it! Suddenly
the Swiss watchmakers went from 90% to 9% of the market....


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Daniel Wengelin                 -- Team Ada, the best 0$ mem-      --
-- CelsiusTech                     -- bership fee you'll ever spend   --
-- dawe@celsiustech.se             --                                 --
-- wengelin@ozspace.brisnet.org.au --                                 --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
with Standard_Disclaimer;

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Robert Dewar]

David Moore says

"Classic COBOL has no block structure, no types (you can fake it on
some compilers with "COPY"). One procedure per compilation unit (there is
a "perform" which allows you to out-of-order execute and return within a
compilation unit but you cannot pass parameters and there are no local
variables) . No effective looping constructs, so you have to use go-tos
(or performs) everywhere."

Now really! We Ada folks should be particularly careful not to commit the
crime of ignorant bashing of languages we know nothing about.

Of course COBOL has block structure (nested programs)
There are nested procedures
Of course you can pass parameters (even COBOL 74 had this feature)
Of course there are perfectly reasonable looping structures
COBOL programmers are as allergic to gotos as Ada programmers

Let's please get our facts straight if we are going to criticize other
languages. 

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Robert Dewar]

The comparison Ada : OS/2 : Porsche
with           C : DOS/Windows : Volkswagon

is actually one that is pretty favorable to Ada.

Yes, DOS/Windows is more popular than OS/2, but millions of people are
using OS/2 to solve problems that would either be impossible or unsatisfactory
if Windows were used to address them.

Similarly, a substantial number of drivers are very happy to drive their
Porshe's and would not consider driving or racing Volkswagen's in their place.

Sure, C is much more pupular than Ada, and lilkely to remain so for the
forseeable future, no one disagrees with that. But popularity is only
one measure (after all judged this way, C is probably a failure compared
to the miserable language used to program macros in Lotus 1-2-3, and COBOL
may still have more programmers trudging around than C). 

The important thing is that, as in the OS/2 and Porshe cases, there will be
cases in which the advantages of Ada play a critical part. The success of
Ada will depend on two things:

   1. Developing technology that can realize the potential of Ada 95

   2. Working hard to identify and exploit those cases in which Ada can
	present a substantial advantage.

Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America

[Michael M. Bishop]

In article <D4DFEH.EDt@world.std.com>,
Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>     Yet one more measure of the rejection of Ada in this country, and one
>more statistic that AJPO in its mismanagement of Ada policy refuses to measure.
>An article in the February 20, 1995, issue of Computerworld, page 129, on
>how companies use technical proficiency tests listed the following table on
>the top 10 computing skills tests being used by corporations:
>
>		1.	Cobol
>		2.	C
>		3.	CICS
>		4.	DB2
>		5.	C++
>		6.	Visual Basic
>		7.	Oracle
>		8.	PowerBuilder
>		9.	Unix
>		10.	DOS
>
>Yet again another measure of the lack of substantial interest in Ada where
>people are free to choose.  And yet the DoD blindly refuses to measure such
[snip]

In many cases, these corporations are not free to choose their
programming language. The reason that Cobol is number 1 is that there
are literally billions of lines of legacy source code written in Cobol.
Reengineering methods and technology have not yet matured sufficiently
to give corporate decision makers the confidence to allow their large,
important software assets to be reengineered into another language (and
possibly design paradigm). 

Besides, even if AJPO and the DoD collected such statistics, what would
you expect them to do about it? Force corporate America to adopt Ada?
Corporations won't start using Ada until there are easily accessible Ada
resources (i.e., people proficient in the language) available. That
isn't the case yet, but with grass-roots efforts like Team Ada, it may
be the case in the near future. (For example, from what I've read here,
the number of universities teaching Ada as their first language is
increasing at a steady rate.) 


-- 
| Mike Bishop              | The opinions expressed here reflect    |
| bishopm@source.asset.com | those of this station, its management, |
| Member: Team Ada         | and the entire world.                  |

When the only tool you have is a ... (was: Re: Another measure of Ada's rejection by corporate America)

[Val Kartchner]

In article <3ij05o$qjq@eccdb1.pms.ford.com>, <bgirardo@bjg4.apo.ford.com> wrote:
>Try to remember that all of these tools have their own use,
>their own "Best Fit" and don't try to use a wrench as a screwdriver.

But you have to remember The Mandate as set forth in Public Law 101-511,
Section 8092:

    "Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, after June 1, 1991,
    where cost effective, all Department of Defense [hardware must be
    constructed using only the tool known as wrench] in the absence of
    special exemption by an official designated by the Secretary of
    Defense."

-- 
|================= #include <stddisclaimer.h> ================/// KB7VBF/P11 =|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind" (tm) Commodore /// Weber State  |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us"(tm) Apple \\\///   University  |
|=== "I think, therefore I AMiga" -- val@cs.weber.edu ====\///= Ogden UT USA =|